Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[puffnstuff]

Use a silencer then the other deer wont hear the shot and go running away.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Similar to the above, anything that lowers quantity is a fantastic outcome in my books. So ya, if that analogy were applied back to the gun world, prohibiting certain types based on appearance sounds like a great idea. Let's start with the black ones.

How is the color or appearance of a firearm related to it's safety or risk to be used in a crime?

A better analogy is that you have two cars. Both go the same speed and have all the same features, but because one has a different name and usually comes in a different color, you need a special silence to drive it, it can only be driven in certain places and you essentially have to ask the government to use it every time.

No one would ever accept those kinds of restrictions on vehicles or anything in common circulation. But guns are fair game because the vast majority don't own them and have had an irrational sense of fear instilled into them by the media.

Originally Posted by blankall

The restrictions in Canada are largely put in place to decrease the users ability to use them to kill other people.

The kind of things you're talking about, silencers, shorter barrel lengths, etc.. Add nothing to a guns utility, unless your goal is to use them on people.

So by that reasoning, all the EU countries that allow their use for safety and for hunting are all wrong? Mind you, these are countries that generally have more restrictions than Canada. Not to mention that a suppressor doesn't work like they are portrayed in the movies. A suppressed rifle or handgun doesn't go "pfftt" and the db range is still in the same range as the sirens on emergency vehicles.

[jayswin]

Man, when gun lovers get into their car analogies I just can't take the discussion seriously. It's how like 90% of gun debates go in the states, lol.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Man, when gun lovers get into their car analogies I just can't take the discussion seriously. It's how like 90% of gun debates go in the states, lol.

I watched the documentary "The Armor of Light", even though it was a bit religious, it was interesting how people try to justify their need for guns and how they reconcile being "Christian" and a gun nut.

[wittynickname]

Back to the actual shooting, this whole thing just looks like a giant failure of US gun laws and a pathetic lack of mental healthcare.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/...6is08g.twitter

Investigators are combing through social media and other information to determine Santiago’s motive, and it’s too early to say whether terrorism played a role, Piro said. In November, Santiago had walked into an FBI field office in Alaska saying the U.S. government was controlling his mind and forcing him to watch Islamic State group videos, authorities said.

On Dec. 8, the gun was returned to Santiago. Authorities wouldn’t say if it was the same gun used in the airport attack.

U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler said Santiago would have been able to legally possess a gun because he had not been judged mentally ill, which is a higher standard than having an evaluation.

Santiago had been discharged from the National Guard last year after being demoted for unsatisfactory performance. Bryan Santiago said Saturday that his brother had requested psychological help but received little assistance. Esteban Santiago said in August that he was hearing voices.

“How is it possible that the federal government knows, they hospitalize him for only four days, and then give him his weapon back?” Bryan Santiago said.

Santiago arrived in Fort Lauderdale after taking off from Anchorage aboard a Delta flight Thursday night, checking only one piece of luggage – his gun, said Jesse Davis, police chief at the Anchorage airport.

Basically a guy who is battling PTSD but because of a lack of funding for veteran healthcare (and an appalling lack of attention paid to mental health for all Americans) is hearing voices, literally goes to the FBI about it, the FBI does a quick eval, decides he's fine and sends him on his way with his firearm.

Then the guy buys a one way ticket and checks only one item--a gun--and no one thinks that's a little bit odd?

So since Freedom! and Second Amendment! now you have hundreds of families affected permanently. I made the mistake of seeing raw footage of the scene in that terminal after the shooting and it was absolutely horrifying and it's going to stick in my memory for a very long time, let alone the people who were actually present.

I'm just so exhausted by this garbage. I'm tired of the "right" to weapons superseding others' ability to go to a freaking airport without worrying about getting their head blown off.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

But guns are fair game because the vast majority don't own them and have had an irrational sense of fear instilled into them by the media.

How is it irrational to fear something designed for killing? If anything, it's irrational not to fear guns, or to somehow believe that if everyone had a gun, nobody would have anything to fear.

You seem to think that someone disagreeing with the right to own personal firearms is irrational, but your reasoning really comes down to "I like them and they make me feel safer, not threatened." That's not any more rational than "I don't like them and they make me feel threatened, not safer".

Further, the right to *own* a gun is disingenuous, what gun owners want is the right to shoot a gun when they feel justified in doing so. Well, we have moved past the need to personally defend your property and life with weapons, we have institutions and laws to do that now. Are these perfect? No, but the rule of law is vastly preferable to the arbitrary rule of the gun; for every scenario where guns "solve" a problem, there are many more scenarios where law prevents problems from happening in the first place.

[CaptainCrunch]

You can't say its a US only problem when we just had a family in Canada wiped out by an ex-solider suffering from serious mental illness and PTSD who managed to get a gun and kill his family and himself.

We can't preach that we as Canadians are doing a fantastic bang up jobs of helping people with mental problems when we're not.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by jammies

How is it irrational to fear something designed for killing? If anything, it's irrational not to fear guns, or to somehow believe that if everyone had a gun, nobody would have anything to fear.
.

Do you fear the knives in your kitchen? If so, why, and if not, why?

[icecube]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Do you fear the knives in your kitchen? If so, why, and if not, why?

I don't know about you, but I don't butter my toast with a gun. People don't need guns in their house. If you want to go hunt something, you should be able to rent them, provided you can prove you aren't mental. People don't need killing weapons in their homes.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by icecube

I don't know about you, but I don't butter my toast with a gun. People don't need guns in their house. If you want to go hunt something, you should be able to rent them, provided you can prove you aren't mental. People don't need killing weapons in their homes.

I make my toast with a flame thrower

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by icecube

I don't know about you, but I don't butter my toast with a gun. People don't need guns in their house. If you want to go hunt something, you should be able to rent them, provided you can prove you aren't mental. People don't need killing weapons in their homes.

Everyone should use a glock to spread butter.

But, knives were designed for killing. That's what they were MADE for. See, what you use them for doesn't matter, in fact it's probably best to hold an irrational fear towards them since again, they were made to stick meaty bags until they bleed out. People don't need knives in the house. If you want to spread butter, you should be able to rent one, provided you can prove you aren't mental. People don't need killing weapons in their homes.

Makes sense right? Who cares if you use a knife to spread butter, or if I use a rifle to shoot holes in paper, both were only made to kill. And in Canada, knives kill more people per year than firearms. You should like, totally turn your knives in. Provided you don't wet your pants at the prospect of being near such inanimate killing machines of course.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Everyone should use a glock to spread butter.

But, knives were designed for killing. That's what they were MADE for. See, what you use them for doesn't matter, in fact it's probably best to hold an irrational fear towards them since again, they were made to stick meaty bags until they bleed out. People don't need knives in the house. If you want to spread butter, you should be able to rent one, provided you can prove you aren't mental. People don't need killing weapons in their homes.

Makes sense right? Who cares if you use a knife to spread butter, or if I use a rifle to shoot holes in paper, both were only made to kill. And in Canada, knives kill more people per year than firearms. You should like, totally turn your knives in. Provided you don't wet your pants at the prospect of being near such inanimate killing machines of course.

This is the same thing over and over again with gun people.

Here's why your argument is ridiculous:
-Knives can be easily homemade, and regulation is impossible. Guns are the opposite.
-knives have many other purposes and are essential household items. Guns are not
-guns are orders of magnitude more lethal. How many toddlers accidentally killed their parent with a knife this year?
-the only reason more people are killed by knives is because there are regulations on guns and knives are everywhere. Reducing the number of guns still reduces the number of deaths

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

This is the same thing over and over again with gun people.

Here's why your argument is ridiculous:
-Knives can be easily homemade, and regulation is impossible. Guns are the opposite.

Zip guns, sten guns, Asian market which brings handguns into countries all over the world that never came from a factory. They even get a BS serial number too. Regulation for knives is not impossible there are countries with knife registries. Want a new silver set from Sears? Better register it, for safety. Look at britains knife laws.

-knives have many other purposes and are essential household items. Guns are not

Says you. Again knives were first designed to kill people. They do so at a higher rate in Canada than firearms. The reasoning here is because I don't use my firearms to kill is no argument for their viability; since their original purpose it to kill. Same with knives, I don't care how you decide to cut your turkey. Knives bad.

-guns are orders of magnitude more lethal. How many toddlers accidentally killed their parent with a knife this year?

Who cares about this when your whole argument lies in original designed purpose/altruism.

-the only reason more people are killed by knives is because there are regulations on guns and knives are everywhere. Reducing the number of guns still reduces the number of deaths

Ahhh that's what's been keeping my firearms from killing people. The regs.

So if the regulations and controls are working for guns then surely you can get behind a knife registry, central storage, and govt medical disclosure forms before you can use one yes? Let's get that 'homicides by knives' number lower. Agreed?

[OMG!WTF!]

My god. When did people lose the ability to tell the difference between a knife and a gun? Baffling.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Zip guns, sten guns, Asian market which brings handguns into countries all over the world that never came from a factory. They even get a BS serial number too. Regulation for knives is not impossible there are countries with knife registries. Want a new silver set from Sears? Better register it, for safety. Look at britains knife laws.



Says you. Again knives were first designed to kill people. They do so at a higher rate in Canada than firearms. The reasoning here is because I don't use my firearms to kill is no argument for their viability; since their original purpose it to kill. Same with knives, I don't care how you decide to cut your turkey. Knives bad.



Who cares about this when your whole argument lies in original designed purpose/altruism.



Ahhh that's what's been keeping my firearms from killing people. The regs.

So if the regulations and controls are working for guns then surely you can get behind a knife registry, central storage, and govt medical disclosure forms before you can use one yes? Let's get that 'homicides by knives' number lower. Agreed?

Knives reduce the consequence (in terms of numbers of dead and bystander victims) of murders.

If we want to play reducto absurdum why can't I own nuclear material. I mean they are used to create power and the homicides by nuclear materials are absurdly low.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by GGG

Knives reduce the consequence (in terms of numbers of dead and bystander victims) of murders.

If we are talking about "mass" murder events, in comparison to firearms yes. If we are talking about overall loss of life (at least in Canada) no.

Don't you want to reduce the amount of people killed each year?

If we want to play reducto absurdum why can't I own nuclear material. I mean they are used to create power and the homicides by nuclear materials are absurdly low.

You have me all wrong. I'm not advocating for guns, I'm advocating for banning knives. They meet every "acceptable" metric for being banned, correct? Made for killing, you don't need one, we can have a registry, central storage, mental screening, works for other countries, think of the kids.

Reducto adsurdum would apply; if only knives and firearms were as rare in civilian hands as nuclear material.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Zip guns, sten guns, Asian market which brings handguns into countries all over the world that never came from a factory. They even get a BS serial number too. Regulation for knives is not impossible there are countries with knife registries. Want a new silver set from Sears? Better register it, for safety. Look at britains knife laws.

So those are easier than whittling a sick into a point? That's a pretty good argument you got there.

Says you. Again knives were first designed to kill people. They do so at a higher rate in Canada than firearms. The reasoning here is because I don't use my firearms to kill is no argument for their viability; since their original purpose it to kill. Same with knives, I don't care how you decide to cut your turkey. Knives bad.

Why does original purpose matter? This is a very silly argument. One is essential for daily tasks (eating, construction, medicinal, etc), the other is not. Why are you arguing about what cavemen made a blade for????

Who cares about this when your whole argument lies in original designed purpose/altruism.

(insert strawman jpeg)

Ahhh that's what's been keeping my firearms from killing people. The regs.

So if the regulations and controls are working for guns then surely you can get behind a knife registry, central storage, and govt medical disclosure forms before you can use one yes? Let's get that 'homicides by knives' number lower. Agreed?

No. Less guns means less successful homicides. We don't need to reduce our knife homicides because our homicide rate is one if the lowest in the world. There isn't a leading need for a multibillion dollar useless beaurocracy to decrease something that's already absurdly low. We also don't need further gun regulations either

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

If we are talking about "mass" murder events, in comparison to firearms yes. If we are talking about overall loss of life (at least in Canada) no.

Don't you want to reduce the amount of people killed each year?



You have me all wrong. I'm not advocating for guns, I'm advocating for banning knives. They meet every "acceptable" metric for being banned, correct? Made for killing, you don't need one, we can have a registry, central storage, mental screening, works for other countries, think of the kids.

Reducto adsurdum would apply; if only knives and firearms were as rare in civilian hands as nuclear material.

No...it is foolish to equate a weapon designed specifically to project lethal force with a tool like a knife or a hammer.

If you can't tell the difference...you are a fool

[PepsiFree]

Something I learned today: the knife I use to spread butter on my bagel is actually designed to be a killing machine. I've been using it all wrong.

Let me know when somebody massacres a group of school children with a butter knife.

Better ban pencils and pens too, they're essentially spears, spears were designed to kill people.

I'm not even anti-gun, but that's just stupid.

[taco.vidal]

The anti-gun freaks make me sick.